« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
SEXUAL ORIENTATION RESEARCH PHASE 2:
THE FUTURE OF LGBT RESEARCH - PERSPECTIVES OF COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS
4 THE CONDUCT OF FUTURE RESEARCH
The group discussions have generated a broad, and substantial, research agenda. However, the discussion of research did not end there. Rather, organisational representatives had much to say about how such an agenda could be taken forward and actualised. This chapter, then, explores a range of issues related to the conduct of research. It begins by outlining participants' views about research methodologies. Issues pertinent to the competence of research are then explored. This is followed by an examination of the opinions expressed about where and by whom research on LGBT issues should be carried out. The final section deals with participation in research, focusing particularly on the barriers to involvement in research, as well as exploring some of the solutions offered.
4.1 Research methodologies
Throughout the discussion of research priorities, it was clear that organisational representatives are as concerned about research methodology as they are about the research priorities identified. This is perhaps unsurprising given that one of the main criticisms felt to be leveled at existing research on LGBT communities in Scotland was the perception that it lacked quality. Consequently, there was concern that any future research should be rigorous.
It should be noted from the outset that it was not the function of these group discussions to formulate exact methodologies for conduct of robust research. Indeed, participants were recruited for their expertise on LGBT issues, and to a certain extent, their knowledge of the views of the larger population of LGBT people, rather than for any expertise in the area of research (although this was present in some of the groups). It is unsurprising therefore that the views expressed about methodology are not precise and while the discussions have generated many valuable suggestions for how research on LGBT issues can be carried out, there are also naiveties in some of the views expressed. In addition, there are certain issues of methodology that representatives did not discuss - and their lack of mention here should not be seen to indicate any judgment about their salience. The appropriateness of various methodologies for research on LGBT issues is the subject of the methodological review - which is a companion study to this consultation.
10 For a more informed discussion of viable methodological options, the reader is referred to this. However, it is still important that representatives' views about methodology are reported - regardless of how viable they may be. These are outlined in the following sections. Where such views can benefit from knowledge of broader methodological issues - this is indicated in the text.
4.1.1 The role of survey research
The emphasis on generating statistics about LGBT people though surveys of the Scottish public or through surveys of LGBT people were all related in some way to a need for a greater understanding of the structure and profile of the communities (discussed in Chapter 3) and consequently with redressing the perceived invisibility of LGBT communities in Scotland. As discussed, the collection of demographic data on the nature of LGBT communities was seen as having the power to convince policy makers - at national and local level - of both the existence of LGBT communities and of the extent of their needs in a whole variety of ways, for example, in relation to funding of community groups, or with regard to better and more equal service provision for LGBT people, and so on. It was argued that since the collection of statistics on minority ethnic communities in Scotland began, greater consideration was shown by policy makers of the needs of those communities and, consequently, this led to greater provision of funding and services to minority ethnic Scots. Thus, it was hoped that the collection of accurate and robust statistics on LGBT people in Scotland would result in similar favourable outcomes.
'I think we know most of the things we want to know already but the fear is that if you don't come before an Executive with exact figures then you will be tossed out on your ear before being given a listen to for funding. You know statistics and figures are the shield and sword of anybody applying for grants and funding' (Regional Group, Transgender Group )
'The point I want to make is that in an ideal situation we should have evidence-based practice which would mean that you know the kind of research that's commissioned should be you know very good samples, it should be quantitative, because numbers have more power, it should be you know as rigorously scientific as possible. I think qualitative research for example with organisations would be a waste of time. That would be the kind of official line of kind of current evidence-based policy' (Central Belt Group, LGBT Researcher)
However, while great emphasis was placed on the value of survey research, there was also some reservation about its utility, particularly if used in isolation from other data techniques. A primary concern related to the difficulties in conducting survey research amongst LGBT people. Here, the sometimes hidden nature of the LGBT existence was seen as a key obstacle in generating reliable, and generalisable, estimates of LGBT presence in Scotland. Fear of disclosure and concerns about confidentiality were felt to lead to under-reporting of LGBT identity or behaviour in surveys. In this respect, it was feared that survey research may only capture the more open or out LGBT experience in Scotland, which it was felt would not generate a representative picture of LGBT existence. These barriers to participation in research are discussed more fully below.
'I don't think it'd ever be terribly accurate because of all the sort of avoiding of labelling yourself that goes on. I think people generally mistrust that kind of thing' (Central Belt Group, LGBT Switchboard)
Given this methodological difficulty, there was general concern that, rather than lead to greater support for policy change, underestimates of the size of LGBT communities could lead to less support for LGBT concerns. However, despite this, there was still strong support for some kind of survey or
'census' of LGBT people in Scotland
11. It was suggested that one way of tackling such concern was to make questions about sexual orientation commonplace on large household surveys
12.
This view was rooted in the belief that repeated inclusion of such questions would lead, over time, to increased levels of disclosure and also increased response rates amongst the LGBT community. It was also felt that greater assurances about the anonymity and confidentiality of survey data would assuage fear of negative consequences and lead to greater openness among LGBT people in answering survey questions about sexual or gender identity.
'…things like the Scottish Household Survey and the Census and so on, you are not encouraged to be honest in your answers. So longs as people genuinely know those things are anonymous gradually people will feel more and more able as the years go by to be open in their answers to those kinds of surveys. And then we'd find out more about the reality of people's families and relationships' (Central Belt Group, Statutory Equalities Officer )
More general criticisms related to the role of statistics in the creation of policy on equality issues. Here it was argued that policy change should be a matter of principle rather than guided by the number of people affected by inequality, in short, that even if one person was excluded or assaulted then that was one too many.
'And the reality is that to address inclusion and diversity within this society…the numbers don't matter it's the equality that matters, it's the principles that matter so I don't think all the areas…for example if there's bullying and discrimination in school…it doesn't matter what the percentage is, the fact is it should never happen' (Central Belt Group, LGBT Organisation)
However, there was also acknowledgement that though equality was a matter of principle, the allocation of resources by central and local government would always be guided by an estimate of need - something which is difficult to demonstrate without some quantitative inquiry.
4.1.2 The role of qualitative research
While great emphasis was placed by organisational representatives on the need for statistics in order to measure the size of LGBT communities and the extent of their service need in relation to a great variety of issues, considerable import was also placed upon the value of understanding the LGBT experience in Scotland - something which, it was felt, was much more the role of a qualitative enquiry. Qualitative data was viewed as getting the stories of LGBT communities across with more immediacy and depth. Organisational representatives identified the power of individual testimonies and case studies, particularly in illustrating examples of exclusion and/or discrimination and in explaining how these impacted upon individuals' lives and families.
'I think it's probably qualitative rather than quantitative research that's going to do…it's getting somebody's story, that's the reality' (Central Belt Group, LGBT Organisation)
Qualitative research was also seen to have considerable advantages over survey approaches in that it was more likely to identify and include the more hidden or less out LGBT perspectives. It was felt important that any assessment of LGBT communities should include the needs of those people who do not identify as LGBT but whose lifestyle and needs may correspond with LGBT people. As mentioned above, it was thought unlikely that this perspective would be captured through any statistical enquiry.
'Folks who are not out and don't want to come out or have a fear of filling in forms and admitting it, you know all these things…are really barriers to clear research, which this community has…a lot of people are quite happy ticking the box whereas [this could be an]…issue that other folks may not be. And it is perhaps the people who are not out that some of these issues are greatest for' (Central Belt Group, Gay Men's Group)
There were, however, some reservations about the use of qualitative research. Qualitative approaches were not always perceived as rigorous and (by consequence) were seen to lack objectivity, particularly in the eyes of policy makers and funding agencies. This may be related to the fact that some qualitative research studies had been carried out by community organisations and perceived by policy makers to present a partial view. However, the broader limitations of qualitative research - in not being able to provide statistical estimates - were also emphasised. Finally, qualitative research was also perceived to be more expensive than survey approaches and therefore perhaps outside the scope of present resources.
Thus, in strategic terms, quantitative data was seen as having greater legitimacy, even though there was a strong belief by participants in the ability of qualitative approaches to tell the story of LGBT experience more effectively. Consequently, there was a recurrent view that a mixed methodology would work best -guided by the belief that through combined use the limitations inherent in each research methodology could be counterbalanced.
'I think the [name of study] is good because it's a mixture of stats and personal…you know the report was because it solved a wee bit of the problem of….it's got stats in it but it's also got personal anecdotes if you know what I mean and people's wee stories or whatever.' (Central Belt Group, LGBT Organisation)
…even if that means one lesbian woman or one gay man is being beaten to a pulp regularly then that's one too many… so numbers are important. What makes a difference….especially [with] Section 28 [was] some of the testimonies that people made….these are powerful things. So I think that you need qualitative information as well as quantitative information. You need both really. (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation )
4.2 Views about the competency of research
While it was never the aim of this consultation to generate a review of research on LGBT issues in Scotland, organisational representatives recurrently made mention of existing research. However, organisational representatives had their own views about the competency of such research - which pinpoint important methodological considerations for any future research conduced on LGBT issues.
Much of the discussion concerned whether existing research was representative of the diverse experiences of LGBT people. There was much discussion surrounding the different circumstances of the more and less out LGBT individual. Existing research, it was felt, could be flawed by an over reliance on the experiences and views of the more out LGBT person. A central concern in this discussion was the amount of research that is conducted using convenience sampling on the commercial scene. This was felt to lead to research fatigue but perhaps more seriously, it was felt that convenience sampling can taint the representativeness of survey results.
There were also questions raised about the validity of findings between existing studies. Where more than one research study had been conducted on a particular topic (a rare occurrence given the paucity of research on LGBT issues) participants voiced the confusion about the meaning of apparently contradictory findings for the reliability of the research.
A final point was raised in relation to competence related to the motivation for conducting research on LGBT issues. It was felt that the lack of research on LGBT issues had promoted many in the pursuit of academic success to try to bridge gaps in current knowledge. However, the professionalism of such research was questioned - especially at undergraduate level - and the over reliance on community organisations to assist in such studies was felt to contribute to fatigue. It was also felt that such research was often inaccessible to community members - and though it served the needs of researchers in obtaining a degree or qualification - it generally was of little value to the LGBT community.
'Oh it's serious research but it might be research for the dissertation and then the person goes off and gets a job and there it ends, or it may be research for PhD and it gets taken further. You never find out, that's the trouble. I know people do, there is lots of different LGBT related research done, whether or not they do it for - they're funded to do it or they're just doing it to get there degree and then [they] disappear, I mean it happens all the time' (Central Belt Group, Student LGBT Officer)
4.3 Carrying out research
The objectivity required from any researcher or research organisation that carried out research on LGBT issues was consistently underscored. This discussion arose out of dissatisfaction that the value of previous community based research had been undermined by criticism of its objectivity. Thus, the autonomy of any future research was seen as integral to its acceptance by policymakers and funders, and to ensure that any recommendations would be considered legitimate. In order for this to occur, it was argued that research organisations would need to provide an objective and neutral perspective on the issues to hand.
'I think it's important not to have any data or any organisation that could taint it for any gain at all. Someone who's just completely independent that has done research in a sensitive manner without trying to sell something. And at the end of the day it's a wasted exercise if you have people saying 'Oh, it's done by…, you know' (Central Belt Group, LGBT Organisation)
This insistence on objectivity was somewhat complicated by the wish for researchers on LGBT issues to have a keen grasp of community issues and a knowledge of LGBT life, qualities it was felt would make research more sensitive to and less intrusive of LGBT communities, and qualities that were generally expected of LGBT researchers or organisations themselves. Consequently, these two seemingly incongruous aims sparked considerable debate in each group discussion about who was best placed to act as researcher on LGBT issues in Scotland. The key points of this debate are outlined in this section.
4.3.1 Research by external researchers or agencies
Independence was typically associated with research carried out by agencies or researchers from outside the LGBT communities. This is not to say that research carried out by LGBT community organisations was considered biased. Rather, there was a general support for the accuracy of such research but also an acknowledgement that such research lacked credence among policy makers and funders. Thus, the argument for 'independent' researchers outwith LGBT communities was generally a strategic one, in that it was hoped that the involvement of external research agencies would bring greater legitimacy to LGBT research. Research organisations outside of LGBT communities were perceived to have greater objectivity in the eyes of statutory funding agencies and policy-makers, because it was presumed that they had no vested interests or political agenda. Consequently, this was felt to be the main way that future accusations of bias or impartiality could be overturned. In addition, it was suggested that research conducted outwith the LGBT communities was likely to have more kudos with policymakers and funders and, consequently, and as a result, that any recommendations arising would be carry more weight.
The other main advantage of having researchers or agencies from outwith the community involved in researching community issues concerned the degree of objectivity that they could bring to addressing research questions. For instance, it was argued that external researchers were better placed to investigate community experiences, views and motivations and had the benefit of a perspective unperturbed by community allegiances, difficulties or disputes. It was also felt that external researchers would be able to raise issues or topics with LGBT communities and respondents that it may be difficult for a community researcher to address.
'Cos if you do it within the LGBT community it will always be questioned, people will always say 'Aye, well you would say that anyway', and that's what people want to do. And I do, I feel quite strongly, it should be totally outwith the LGBT community' (Regional Group, Gay Men's Organisation)
4.3.2 Research conducted by LGBT organisations and researchers
Despite such arguments, organisational representatives outlined a range of factors that gave support to research that was carried out by community organisations and researchers. Chief amongst these was the view that community researchers were likely to have greater knowledge of LGBT life, and thus, were better situated to conduct research in a sensitive way. Because of their experience of working closely with LGBT populations, such organisations were perceived as having more established local networks and a closer understanding of the dynamics, configurations and distribution of local LGBT communities (significant in the probable absence of any local demographic data). It was also felt that research from within the community would likely be more relevant to and grounded within community needs.
'I'm not trying to claim that community-based organisations would have any great sort of objectivity as to what mindset they interpret data with, but I would say that it might be, if no more accurate, perhaps more up to date, more relevant and more culturally embedded with greater understanding' (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation )
There was some belief that research conducted by LGBT researchers would also lead to greater community participation (discussed in more detail below). It was suggested, for example, that LGBT researchers would likely engender greater trust and confidence in respondents, and perhaps, greater belief in the utility of the research. In addition, researchers within LGBT communities were seen to be better placed to access the more hidden populations of LGBT people who may otherwise get missed from research if conducted by external research organisations.
The potential for LGBT respondents to be more open with LGBT researchers was also mooted. Here it was suggested that respondents may simply not feel comfortable and, as a result, disclose less information in research conducted by non-LGBT people. In this respect, the value of 'matching' respondent and researcher was emphasised, as illustrated by the following comment:
'Well I think it's got to be professional able researchers, but I do have an issue with you know…I mean I'm not saying straight people can't do it but you know I think there are problems. It's a bit like a man doing research into women's issues, it's not impossible but I think it is advantageous to the research if it's constructed and led by gay and lesbian people…I'm not saying that a straight person couldn't do it but you know I think it removes barriers much more readily if it's a gay or lesbian person who's researching' (Central Belt Group, Union Equalities representative)
Finally, on a more pragmatic note, it was highlighted that many LGBT organisations depended on being commissioned to carry out community based research in order to keep afloat. To locate research outside of the LGBT communities was therefore seen as removing a vital financial resource, which could potentially destabilise the Scottish voluntary LGBT sector.
4.3.3 Research partnership - A way forward
On balance, the discussion was not as divided as one might think from the different views outlined above. Indeed, at times the same representative articulated contradictory views, seeing both the benefits and drawbacks of each approach.
'It's a double-edged sword, there's pros and cons. I wouldn't go down one absolute road in either direction, I think certainly external research but in consultation with the community, I think that's the only middle course' (Regional LGBT Group, Gay Men's Group )
Comments like this demonstrate the need to incorporate independence, objectivity and sensitivity in any future research endeavour. In this sense, there was felt to be a clear role for community organisations and researchers in making external research agencies more sensitive to the needs of the LGBT communities - for example through the provision of awareness training, commenting on research specifications, methodologies and also on the results of research:
'I think the researchers or the people who are drawing up the research specification need to have had awareness training of what the issues are because you could be completely ignorant, but the problem is I think if gay organisations do research, then the consequence of that is 'Well, you would say that wouldn't you?' and therefore…. I think people who don't want to hear the consequences of your research will be able to dismiss it…And so [they should be] people who've had proper awareness training but who are part of an accredited agency should be doing it' (Central Belt Group, National LGBT Organisation)
Equally, there was seen to be a role for external agencies in enhancing the effectiveness of community based research - perhaps by the provision of training, support and advice in research and evaluation methods. More broadly, the potential for collaborative ventures in research was also mooted - where external research agencies and community organisations worked in tandem on a piece of research - to ensure that a study was both community based but also independent.
4.4 Participation in research
The final set of issues that relate to the future conduct of research encompassed the participation of LGBT people in research about their lives and communities. Identifying ways of encouraging participation in research was generally viewed as crucial to its success. In their discussion of this, organisation representatives identified a range of factors that prevented or discouraged LGBT people from participation in research. These are considered in this section, as are the potential solutions that were also suggested.
4.4.1 Research overload and fatigue
The difficulties posed by research fatigue were emphasised throughout the group discussions, particularly by representatives of gay and bisexual men. The vast amount of research conducted on the sexual behaviour of men who have sex with men over the past twenty years (since the onset of HIV) was felt to have led to considerable resistance to research inquiry amongst them. As highlighted in Chapter 3, other populations were by contrast considered to be under researched. Consequently, it is likely that research fatigue is less of an issue amongst lesbian and bisexual women and transgendered people.
There was some feeling that younger members of the LGBT community were also at risk of research fatigue. Participants identified an over-reliance on peer support projects and other community organisations to research issues relating to LGBT youth - or an overuse of the commercial scene (such as bars, clubs and other establishments) in which young people were more likely to congregate.
'Young people [are] going to start to get all questionnaired out and all interviewed out … if they aren't already feeling a bit like they're under the microscope because constantly they're filling in questionnaires and they're doing interviews, and what happens at the end of it all? They're still feel like 'Here we go, another bit of research and nothing's going to happen, we're not going to get any more services, we're not going to get any more support'. (Central Belt Group, LB Youth Organisation)
As with all communities, intrusion into respondents' limited spare time was seen to lead to research fatigue. In particular, the recruitment (and sometimes interviewing) of respondents within social venues such as pubs and clubs was seen to promote a general distaste for research, which was seen to usurp valuable (and for some limited) leisure time.
As the representative quoted above identifies, the feeling of being over-researched was also felt to be related to the lack of feedback received about previous research studies. Particularly where studies were conducted in England, Scotland and Wales, it was argued that results were rarely communicated in a way that gave findings for Scotland - separate to other countries.
'The publicity has been for England and Wales. Every news item 'England and Wales'. Nothing about Scotland at all. So if you are Scots you actually feel it doesn't matter how much information you give central bodies, nothing is done with it. There's no feedback say. And it needs to be publicised that something is being done with it' (Regional Group, Gay Men's Group)
Opinions such as this were seen to represent a more general scepticism about the utility of taking part in research studies. Without the wide dissemination of research findings, and evidence that research can lead to concrete changes in policy or practice - it was seen as more and more difficult to persuade individuals to participate in research studies - no matter whether they were conducted by agencies within or outwith the LGBT community.
4.4.2 Issues of identity
There was a recurring view that participation in LGBT research required more of LGBT people than research usually required of a respondent in that it obliged LGBT people to both identify in a particular way and to disclose that identity to other people. Both of these issues were seen to have significant implications for the level of participation one could expect in studies of LGBT people.
Throughout the discussions, there was a clear distinction drawn between people who considered themselves to be lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender - regardless of whether they chose to make this public knowledge - and those who had same sex sexual encounters, or had knowledge of their gender dysphoria, but who did not (for a variety of reasons) choose to interpret this in terms of an identity. Thus, it was felt that research that targeted LGBT people would not be likely to capture the latter group of individuals and, consequently, would be unlikely to represent the views, experiences or behaviour of these people. In this respect, these people were seen to be the most 'hidden' type of LGBT respondent.
'Some people will identify themselves as being gay, some will not, though in practice their sexual behaviour is gay. Some people will identify as bisexual, some will not…Some will identify as lesbians, some will be lesbian by practice, and so on. So it is a very complicated area. Some won't admit their sexuality because of religious or belief systems they are part of. So it's a fraught area but doesn't stop the need for those kind of figures' (Regional Group, LGBT organisation)
The second area of difficulty concerns those who do identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender but who may not publicly acknowledge this. Throughout the discussions, organisational representatives catalogued a whole range of reasons why people may refuse to disclose their sexual or gendered identities, which mainly related to fear of homo- and trans-phobic reactions from family, peers, employers and colleagues and wider society. In this respect, it was felt that those who were not publicly admitting of their sexual orientation were unlikely to jeopardise their safety or security by participating in LGBT research - regardless of how useful they felt it to be. Indeed it was suggested that not 'out' LGBT people would simply not want to participate in anything that they perceived was related to LGBT communities, including research commissioned under 'LGBT' auspices, and as such constituted a second type of 'hidden' LGBT population.
'I mean it is wrong to talk about the LGBT community as I think we'd all acknowledge and accept that there are numerous communities within that. And within that there some communities of people, if you're talking sets of people, who would not identify as being within any community whatsoever …so much so that they'd probably be resistant to the idea in fact' (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation )
There was much discussion throughout the groups of the importance of including these two 'hidden' groups within any research conducted on LGBT people, although, there were some who questioned whether LGBT research by its very nature should attempt to represent those who do not identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The lack of participation by either group, however, was generally viewed as limiting the validity of LGBT research, which it was argued would only give voice to the more open or out experience. Without an understanding of both the more open and 'hidden' experience, it was argued that research would fail to understand the fluidity between these circumstances - where it was felt a lot could be learned about the strategies for supporting people in coming to terms with their sexual identity or gender dysphoria. Indeed, it was suggested by some that exploring 'hidden communities' was a more important research priority than understanding 'out' LGBT experience because the service and information needs may well be more acute.
4.4.3 The definition of community
The way in which LGBT people were conceptualised by researchers - and by policy makers - was seen to have considerable implications for those who participated in research. Participants highlighted a popular misconception that researching LGBT people involved accessing a straightforward and identifiable set of individuals, something that the discussion in the preceding section has demonstrated is clearly not the case. Throughout the group discussions a recurrent set of questions were raised about the nature of community that respondents felt had important implications for defining who the participants in LGBT research were likely to be. In this respect, organisational representatives questioned whether there was any coherent definition of what constituted an LGBT community. In addition, they debated whether it was one community or some sort of consortium of related communities (each deserving specific research exercises). Leading on from this were queries about who the likely members were and whether membership was based on behaviour or identity or both. Indeed a broader question related to whether a 'community' existed at all. All of these issues were felt to complicate research objectives because, depending on the answers, one could end up with very different sets of participants for 'community' research.
'I mean what is a community? Are we community representatives? Or are we the ones that speak the loudest? Or whatever… So there's all of those issues and there is that understanding of the definition of community or communities is so disparate because we are such a disparate group of people, and which is part of our strength as well, so there are these fundamentals that have to be addressed' (Central Belt Group, National LGBT organisation)
4.4.4 Enhancing participation in research
Throughout their discussion of participation in research, organisational representatives highlighted a range of strategies for overcoming difficulties in encouraging participation
13. These encompassed:
There was a clear sense that greater participation in research could be achieved by clearer articulation of the confidentiality of research data and the anonymity of research participants. Giving better guidance to potential respondents about what happens to research data, and using instruments - such as self completion questionnaires - to record sensitive data, could achieve this. It was anticipated that this could lead to greater participation in research by the more hidden populations outlined earlier - particularly in larger household based surveys - where it was felt there was a greater perception of anonymity. There was a strong role perceived for community organisations in informing LGBT people about the confidentiality of data and assurances of anonymity. It was felt that the involvement of community organisations would engender greater trust amongst LGBT people and thus lead to greater participation.
There was sometimes a view that the branding of research as being about LGBT communities or individuals specifically excluded people who had difficulty coming to terms with their sexual orientation, or those who had similar behaviours but who did not identify in a similar way. Consequently, conducting research without necessarily using an 'LGBT' title was one way that representatives felt that participation could be increased for these more 'hidden' populations.
As a way of addressing some of the issues they raised in relation to research fatigue, participants felt it important to give a clear indication of the motivation for, and intended use of LGBT research to LGBT communities and individuals. This was seen as important in being able to counter perceptions that research was merely a way of postponing action. Moreover, it was felt that giving a clear indication of the motivation for and ultimate use of research was important in being accountable to LGBT communities. It was also felt that reasons for repeated or longitudinal research on a particular topic needs to be particularly emphasised to avoid perceptions of over-researching.
An ever-present theme throughout all groups was the perceived need to think creatively about recruitment methodologies. Groups suggested a range of strategies that could increase participation. For example, it was suggested that recruitment of respondents should not be limited to the commercial scene and those who use community organisations or read LGBT publications. Rather, wider use should be made of municipal or public venues (such as town halls, swimming pools, libraries or parks) as places to advertise LGBT research or even as venues for picking up or dropping off questionnaires. It was felt that this could lead to greater participation without compromising anonymity. In a similar vein, the use of the Internet as a method of contacting and/or recruiting people was underscored. This was felt to be of particular value to LGBT individuals in rural areas. This again was a way of preserving the anonymity of respondents but also a way of reaching a wider sample of people - particularly more hidden populations of LGBT individuals. However, certain access issues were also raised. For instance, not all LGBT people were felt to have access to or familiarity with the Internet and so would be excluded from this approach.
As noted earlier - there was much scepticism about the value of research and its influence on policy and practice. Any evidence which could verify its role in this regard would likely increase participation in research.
This chapter has explored perceptions of how future research should be commissioned and carried out and how participation within it should be best encouraged. The next chapter examines views relating to the co-ordination of research, specifically commissioning and dissemination.
« Previous | Contents | Next »